SANBAG Growth Forecast Presentation

1. SANBAG Growth Forecast Presentation February 15, 2006

2. Why Is SANBAG Analyzing Growth Forecasts? • Growth forecasts directly impact SANBAG’s: • Policy Decisions • Cost and Effectiveness of Infrastructure Decisions • A “bottom up” assessment and validation is needed of the reasonableness of SED for 2008 RTP • Good TAZ-level data is critical

3. What is SANBAG Doing? • SANBAG, working with SCAG staff, has been evaluating and refining growth forecasts for SB County based on: • Existing Land Use Inventory • Vacant Land Use Inventory • General Plan Land Use Inventory.

4. Four Step Process • Refine and validate 2003 base year socio-economic data • Update the 2030 forecast • Prepare a buildout estimate for jurisdictions in the urbanized portions of the County, based on General Plan land use • Check the relationships between 2003, 2030, and buildout

5. Step One Refining the Base Year

6. Base Year Analysis • Received 2003 city-level employment from SCAG, using CTPP employment distribution • SCAG allocated 2003 employment to cities based on CTPP 2000 employment distribution • SANBAG used Existing Land Use coverages (2000 and 2004) to adjust the SCAG 2003 city-level employment data • Better reflects employment growth patterns in SB County since 2000 • No modifications to SCAG 2003 households

7. Land Use Change 2000-2004—East Valley

8. Land Use Changes2000-2004—West Valley

9. Land Use Changes2000-2004—Victor Valley

11. Step Two Developing a 2030 Horizon Year Forecast

12. Draft 2030 Forecasts • Growth based on local jurisdiction input for SANBAG’s development mitigation Nexus Study (mid-2005) • Considered 2004 RTP growth, but independent estimate • Applied growth estimates to new 2003 base households and employment • Revised 2030 not yet reviewed by jurisdictions

13. 2030 Adjusted SED

14. Step Three Develop a Buildout Forecast

15. Vacant Land Use Analysis - Valley and Victor Valley • Used Vacant Land Use and General Plan Land Use Inventories to generate buildout scenario • Applied employment density factors to generate employees • Used max. dwelling unit density for each GP residential LU type • Assumed no redevelopment • Compared 2030 and buildout • Forecast 2030 growth can be accommodated within Valley and Victor Valley overall • 2030 exceeds buildout for certain cities

16. Vacant Land by GP Land Use Type—East Valley

17. Vacant Land by GP Land Use Type—West Valley

18. Vacant Land by GP Land Use Type—Victor Valley

19. Buildout Analysis

20. Step 4 Check the Relationships

21. Ratio of 2030 Adjusted to Buildout—East Valley

22. Ratio of 2030 Adjusted to Buildout—West Valley

23. Ratio of 2030 Adjusted to Buildout—Victor Valley

24. Ratio of 2030 Adjusted to Buildout by jurisdiction

25. Conclusions • Countywide, projected 2030 growth can be accommodated • Questionable whether 2030 growth can be accommodated in certain cities • Need guidance on how to assess potential for infill and redevelopment

26. Conclusions • Need better understanding from SCAG regarding how SED allocation process works • Need better process for single/multi family splits by TAZ and retail/non-retail employment splits by TAZ • Realistic TAZ-level forecasts are crucial to transportation analysis

27. What’s Next? • Work with SCAG on draft county-level and city-level 2030 forecasts • SANBAG will generate TAZ-level 2003 SED (from city-level) based on land use, provide data back to SCAG • SANBAG/SCAG generate 2030 TAZ-level SED

28. What’s Next? • Cities review data at TAZ level (2003 and 2030 together, with SF/MF splits and ret/non-ret emp splits) • Modifications provided to SCAG • SCAG use same data for regional model